BURIED in Friday's Federal Court order is a terse challenge to the Harper government: Speak up on the Lori Douglas case.

Federal Attorney General Rob Nicholson is the respondent in Federal Court matters related to Douglas's disciplinary hearing. When the judicial review begins, it will be the attorney general who will argue the Canadian Judicial Council's process has been fair and unbiased.

But, in the preliminary matters before the Federal Court, including Douglas's application to put the disciplinary hearing on hold, Ottawa has maintained an "overwhelming silence," Federal Court Justice Judith Snider wrote Friday.

That better not be a pattern that carries on into the judicial review itself, she warned.

"Indeed, I would view such an abdication as irresponsible, totally contrary to the public interest and close to contemptuous of this court," Snider wrote.

Alex Chapman filed a complaint three years ago, alleging lawyer Jack King wanted him to have sex with Lori Douglas, King's wife, in 2003. Chapman's complaint accuses Douglas of sexual harassment. She is on paid leave from her position as a judge in Manitoba's Court of Queen's Bench. (COLE BREILAND / WINNIPEG FREE PRESS ARCHIVES) Photo Store

The disciplinary hearing into the conduct of Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench Justice Lori Douglas is on hold, maybe forever.

The hearing, which gripped the province's legal community last summer thanks to its titillating details, may not resume for months or years, if ever, pending the outcome of a judicial review. It's possible the matter will end up before the Supreme Court of Canada.

A Federal Court judge ruled Friday continuing the highly charged disciplinary hearings into Douglas's conduct would compound the irreparable harm to her reputation and career.

Friday's ruling, seen as a victory for Douglas, inches the tortuous matter forward, paving the way for a full judicial review of the disciplinary hearing, which is on hold.

'Allegations of bias are easy to make but hard to prove and rarely successful. There is a strong case for bias here'

-- University of Manitoba law Prof. Karen Busby

Douglas has alleged the hearing by a Canadian Judicial Council panel is biased because the panel allowed improper and adversarial cross-examination of her husband, lawyer Jack King, which revealed private details about their sex life. Douglas is also alleging bias because the CJC's panel refused to allow Douglas's lawyer to cross-examine complainant Alex Chapman about his credibility.

Three years ago, when the scandal first erupted, Chapman filed a complaint with the CJC accusing Douglas of sexual harassment. Chapman alleged King sent him nude photos of Douglas and wanted Chapman to have sex with her. At the time, King was representing Chapman in a divorce case. King has admitted to giving Chapman sexually explicit photographs of his wife that were posted on the Internet, all without his wife's consent, and to paying Chapman $25,000 to settle the complaint.

University of Manitoba law Prof. Karen Busby did not want to prejudge the outcome of the upcoming judicial review but said there is merit in Douglas's claim the CJC's panel is biased.

"Allegations of bias are easy to make but hard to prove and rarely successful," she said. "There is a strong case for bias here."

And, given that it's taken a year to settle the preliminary matters, she said it could be six to nine months at best before the review is held and a decision emerges.

It's possible -- some say even likely -- the judicial review will spawn further appeals, possibly all the way to the Supreme Court.

It's also possible the judicial review will call a permanent halt to the CJC's disciplinary hearing.

Staff at the CJC are more optimistic about a speedy outcome, saying they are hopeful the judicial review will be concluded in time for the disciplinary hearing to resume as planned this fall.

"I am more optimistic than others," said Norman Sabourin, the CJC's executive director and senior general counsel. "To the extent I have anything to do with it, things are going to move quickly."

He said he also believes a judicial review will confirm the disciplinary panel has acted without bias.

"I'm confident that the council has a process that is fair and will withstand scrutiny," said Sabourin.

Also Friday, the Federal Court refused to grant intervenor status in the judicial review to the CJC's disciplinary panel. It also refused to expand the intervenor role granted to the independent counsel in the case.

It's possible those orders could spark appeals, further delaying the judicial review.

Douglas has been on paid leave from the bench since 2010, pending the outcome of the inquiry.

You can comment on most stories on winnipegfreepress.com. You can also agree or disagree with other comments.
All you need to do is be a Winnipeg Free Press print or e-edition subscriber to join the conversation and give your feedback.

You can comment on most stories on winnipegfreepress.com. You can also agree or disagree with other comments.
All you need to do is be a Winnipeg Free Press print or e-edition subscriber to join the conversation and give your feedback.